by Jeremy D. Morley
Based on my expert testimony concerning the laws and practices of Indian courts in international child custody cases, a court in Minnesota has overturned an order directing that a child living in Minnesota should have visitation with the mother in India.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals had remanded the case “in the interest of justice” to the trial court in light of my expert affidavit on this matter, even though the affidavit had not been timely submitted. Bhardwaj v. Sud, 2024 WL 1154329 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, March 6, 2024).

I then testified as an expert witness on international child custody including with special reference to the laws and practices of India. I explained in detail the risk factors of potential international child abduction, their application to the alleged facts in the pending case, and the great difficulty of securing the return of wrongfully-retained children from India.
The court has now adopted my recommendations, even though an Indian lawyer testified in opposition to my opinions.
Specifically, the court ruled as follows:
“Morley presented as a preeminent authority in the areas of international custody disputes and abduction matters—the public policy components motivating both Indian and United States policies, the practical impacts of how these policy choices play out in specific cases involving international custody disputes, and the ways in which the resulting risk of child abduction can lead to one of the worst forms of child abuse. The Court found Morley's testimony credible and helpful in deciding this case as to the issue of parenting time, and abduction risks, as well as Indian law pertaining to the issue of custody, parenting time, and implementing/adopting a foreign Court order….
Morley testified that he routinely advises similarly situated persons as Father to avoid litigation in India as any litigation would likely be extremely expensive and extraordinarily slow, and a positive result is usually impossible to obtain. Morley further advised that litigation in India often involves many cases once the first case starts, and there are typically multiple proceedings initiated in both, civil and criminal, jurisdictions. Morley cautioned that litigation in India is subject to extreme delays. The Court finds that any litigation in India would be protracted.
The Court finds that enforcement of this Court's orders in India is questionable at best. The Court's finding is based on Morley's testimony that there is no provision of Indian law that requires or authorizes an Indian court to respect any continuing jurisdiction of a court in another country where a child was previously habitually resident. There is no provision for the registration of foreign custody orders. There is no law that is equivalent in any way to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act concerning exclusive and continuing jurisdiction. According to Morley, pursuant to India law, this Court's order would merely be a factor to consider as part of a de novo custody matter….
Morley explained that filing of criminal charges is a strategy employed by litigants such as Mother and has even been deemed by the exasperated Supreme Court of India as “legal terrorism.”…
Morley offered that when the child is retained in India, criminal proceedings supply another barrier making it more difficult for the left-behind parent to come to India to participate in the proceedings.”
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment